Maybe If...

Posted by Tazza on 21.01.01 00:00

I tend to agree with the theory that the Oath Rod is reducing the life span of the Aes Sedai. At the moment, it makes sense. Here's a thought... Why don't the Aes Sedai make a man swear on the Oath Rod instead of gentling them?

In order to explain my theory I'll refer to The Path of Daggers (Chapter 11,p256-257). Sevanna forces Galina to swear on a rod very much like the Oath Rod in the Tower. After she swears, Therava commands her to obey her and Sevanna, and also not to touch saidar without her permission. She can't channel even if she wants to, without the Shaido Wise One's permission.

"The shield vanished, and Galina knelt there, staring hollowly. The Source shone just out of sight, tantalizing. And she could have sprouted wings as easily as she could stretch out for it."
Where I'm going with this is if an Oath Rod could prevent Galina from channeling, it could prevent men from channeling as well. Simple, easy, and less painful. The men wouldn't die from the after effects of gentling. But there are a few holes I know. Does the Oath Rod work for men (I not too sure on that one), and would they die of the wasting sickness that accompanies male channelers? Just a thought...

wotmania says: This is definitely an interesting idea. Sometimes I get a theory like this and wonder why I (or all the people in Randland) didn't think of that. I would assume the Oath Rod works on men, too. If so, having men swear on the Oath Rod would make a lot more sense - they would not die, and maybe the Aes Sedai would not have managed to breed the channeling ability out of mankind.


Re: Maybe If...

Posted by vulanth on 07.04.01 00:00
Hmm.. I'm just browsing through theories here, and I came across your idea of an oath rod being used to bind men channelers instead of gentling them. Maybe that would work, but, if the man has been channeling, the taint probably had messed with his mind at least somewhat by then, if not a lot. Prehaps this has been tried at one time in the past, and the insanity caused by the taint somehow twisted the command in the man's mind, allowing the man to channel again, despite his oath. I dont have anything from the books to back this up, but it makes a fair ammount of sense, I think.
And another thing, maybe the Oath Rod the Tower has is designed only for female ussage? They might need an oath rod designed for men in order to do this, as i believe an oath rod only works on someone that can channel anyway (stilled Aes Sedai are no longer held by their oaths, for example), and from what I've seen, few ter'angreal seem to work for both sides. They are usually for Saidar, or Saidin, or both at once. Dunno if this is correct, but just as I see it.

Oath Rods and men

Posted by Lord Nazh on 14.04.01 00:00
when sammeal gave the oath rod to sevanna he told her it would only work for women that channel, therefore, at least that one can't be used on men

Trusting aren't we?

Posted by Aaron on 26.04.01 00:00
trusting the word of a forsaken about the ability of the binder? Maybe he just didn't want to give sevanna any idea's about using it on Rand herself? I don't think she knew he (the forsaken) could channel so no worries there.

It isnt the gentling that kills them....

Posted by Bengan on 03.08.01 10:24
Assuming that the Oath Rod is one of the Nine rods of Dominion, there are probably different kinds of rods... some that works on women, some that works on men.

And when a man is gentled, it is not the gentling that kills them, they just loses the will to live without channeling... so if you would make a man swear that he would not channel any more, he would still die after a few years.


Posted by jahar narishma on 17.08.01 04:09
suppose the men who can channel bind themselves on the oathroad, it would be very easy to unbind them and let them channel again. i think they thought it better to gentle them instead so it will be more permanent. ok, I know they can still be healed but at least it would be more difficult cause it requires a particular talent in healing.

Jahar Narishma

Ashaman Extraordinaire

BS Saidin, major in Traveling

Great Idea!

Posted by Dragon O. Dare on 06.12.01 09:53
You've come up with a brilliant, humane way to effectively "neuter" channeling men. However, I have a few pretty good ideas as to why the Aes Sedai themselves haven't thought of it, or at least put it into practice.
a) The Red Ajah is so incredibly zealous in their hatred of men--channelers or otherwise--that there is no way they would've allowed any Amyrlin to order an end to gentling.
b) Taking the Oath on the Rod is an important symbolic step towards becoming an Aes Sedai, or at least it has been and will be as long as the White Tower at large doesn't know of its adverse effects. Recall how Nynaeve, Elayne, and other "Aes Sedai" raised without the Rod are treated: as if they are imposters, or children pretending. Thus, the Oaths carry a heavy psychological weight for all sisters, and most would probably think making MEN who CHANNEL swear on their sacred relic would defile it, and thier order.

This is how I think the Aes Sedai would react to such an idea, and why. Nobody ever said they were rational, not ever the Whites.

Lord of the Rings was a Good Book
If you care for sexist, racist dreck written as only a scholar of the nineteen-fifties could

they don't use it

Posted by jahar narishma on 09.04.02 09:10
for the simple reason that it can be broken, while gentling is permanent (or used to be). Death is more permanent, like what they did in Aielmen channeler and in Seanchan. IMHO, I think the most effective way is death by balefire.

Jahar Narishma

Ashaman Extraordinaire

BS Saidin, major in Traveling

The Oath Rod doesn't work on men.

Posted by King Nothing on 06.05.02 20:45
When Sammael gives the Oath Rod to Sevanna and Galina, he also mentions that he'll have to bring them something else in order to hold Rand against his will. I believe he called it a binding chair, but the fact that he didn't suggest using the Oath Rod on al'Thor proves that it doesn't work on men.

How would anyone know they had sworn?

Posted by Eyeless Myrddraal on 07.05.02 09:19
You have to channel a small flow of spirit into the Oath Rod to make it work. Obviously, it is easy to know that a new Aes Sedai has actually done this, because the other Aes Sedai witnessing the event would be able to see the flow. But how would anyone know that a man wasn't just pretending? Besides, the Oath Rod may only work for women channellers.

And to those of you who trust "Caddar" (Sammael) for your evidence, remember how he gave Sevanna some "travelling boxes": utterly useless pieces of stone that were supposed to make a gateway. He just made one himself from a hiding place the first time the "travelling box" was used, and left the Shaido to fend for themselves after they discovered that it was a load of crap.

You must chop down the tallest tree in the forest with... a herring!






Maybe better not

Posted by BitMaster on 30.05.02 12:20
Someone just has to channel a flow of spirit into the oath rod, not necessairy the holder.

However, what would it help to use the oath rod to forbid men to channel (provided it really does work on men)? The effect is the same: They know they will never be able to channel again and the will to live would just drain out of them.

Also, remember Aes Sedai's attitude to their oaths (especially about ly- sorry, not speaking an untrue word). Would you bet the current shape of your continents on the believe that no man would be smart enough to reason his way around the oath?

And what if they are already slightly mad when they swear the oath? How good does the rod work on mad men? How can you be sure he is not mad enough already?

I'm not sure about this fact, but I think I remember swearing on the oath rod wasn't introduced until quite a while after the breaking (if so, it is likely to assume that hardly anyone knew or thought about the rod before someone dragged it out of some dusty storeroom). So the tradition to gentle man has been going on a long time before the oath rod entered your usual Aes Sedai's thoughts. And we know their attitude to changing tradition as well, don't we?

Binders of men..

Posted by baphomet23 on 19.06.02 03:50
Would have existed in some form during the AOL, as binders were used to limit criminal activity. I don't belive the White binder can bind men, I tend to take Caddar at face value. Maybe that orange rod Elayne got from Ebou Dar is a male binder.
More importantly, why didn't the AS at the start of the breaking force the men to swear an oath restricting them from destroying and killing?? Or does the Oath Rod or binder not work on an insane person. This seems unlikely, as we know from Graendal that unhinged people did exist in the AOL, and if they could channel they may well have been dangerous. It would make more sense if the binder worked regardless.
However, perhaps the binder does little more than create a solid mental block preventing the proscribed action, as opposed to actually effecting an individual's ability to channel. This would mean that the insane couldn't be bound, but raises questions as to the limiting of age and the change in appearance, although both of these may have been elements of the punishment.

Baphomet 23

Give me the strength to change the things I can, the grace to accept the things I cannot, and a great big bag of money.

My online gallery:


Posted by Mahdi Raen on 07.08.02 15:48
first, the rod only requires SOMEONE to channel into it...not necessarily the person who is oathing (not a word...i just wanted to say that).

second, if you buy into the theory that the rod was used to bind criminals in the AoL, then surely you can't believe that all criminals in the AoL could channel...

Binding Chair

Posted by googliezoo on 09.09.02 19:46
I was under the impression that the oath rod or the rods of dominion only work on channelers, but that a binding chair will work on anyone. I'm not sure if some rods will only work for men and some for women. I'm also quite sure that the vast majority of Aes Sedai do not know that the oaths can be removed. Seaine (the AS Elaida sent to hunt out the BA in the WT) only recently figured out that the oaths must be removeable because the BA must be able to lie. Most AS don't even admit to believing in the BA, let alone dwelling on it enough to figure this out. Plus no one even suspected that Suian and Leanne are freed from the oaths.

I'm thinking the reason they don't have men swear on the rod is that the AS don't see the OR as an instrument of punishment, it is what makes them AS. Gentling and Stilling are very severe punishments. I wonder if Egwene will ever find out the original purpose of the OR and give up the ridiculous notion that it is what makes them AS. AS in the AoL were very respected. Today's AS are confusing respect with fear.

Swearing men

Posted by oldmanfish on 11.11.02 19:31
Binders work on everyone. Caddar may have just not wanted to be shielded, captured and bound on the spot.
Aes Sedai wouldn't want filthy channelling men taking Oaths on their sacred doohickey, and it's too easy to get around an Oath, especially if you are insane. After the Breaking, who would take the chance?
And the Black Ajah, who knew the Oath could be removed, and wouldn't want the Dragon able to channel, would have stifled the notion immediately.
But it was a good idea!

"You seem a decent fellow... I'd hate to kill you."

That curel

Posted by Jehu Elohim on 26.11.02 12:15

In reagads to the sick at tiwsited idea of have a man swear on the oath rod and then tell him he can never touch the source is much more curel then genteling. With Gentiling you might be able to come to grips with some that you lost. But being albe to sence the power, and yet not touch, well the man will go mad with that alone. How many refrence have been made at the pure joy of touching the source, so you are going to put some one so close to that joy and not let him touch it. would you put a cookies in the hands of child and told him only to look feel, but not eat, you might if your sick and twisted. If a man cant be alowed to chanel, Gentel him its more human.
But at this point why would you have to gentel him if the source is clean?

Thats curel. sick...

Posted by Jehu Elohim on 26.11.02 12:17
In reagads to the sick at tiwsited idea of have a man swear on the oath rod and then tell him he can never touch the source is much more curel then genteling. With Gentiling you might be able to come to grips with some that you lost. But being albe to sence the power, and yet not touch, well the man will go mad with that alone. How many refrence have been made at the pure joy of touching the source, so you are going to put some one so close to that joy and not let him touch it. would you put a cookies in the hands of child and tell him only to look and feel, but not eat, you might if your sick and twisted. If a man cant be alowed to chanel, Gentel him its more human.
But at this point why would you have to gentel him if the source is clean?

Perhaps it could work...

Posted by stregom on 15.04.03 12:01
maybe the reason that sammael told sevanna that the oath rod wouldn't work on a rand is becasue saidin has to be channeled into it for it to bind a male channeler. and since they don't happen to have any male channelers around, and rand surely wouldn't do it himselfit wouldn't work. true, sammael could have worked the flows himself but how would he explain the rod working without any channeling? also wasn't there a black rod found somewhere (besides the balefire one)? maybe that was a male oath rod.


Posted by AshaMan Blademaster on 11.05.08 11:19
First things first, The Oath Rod (Binder) is NOT a Rod of Dominion, it's the Tittle given to the Regionalal Governors of the Age of Legends. there, thats out of my system.

Personaly I think binders work on any channeller, but requires the correct half of the power to be effective., i.e Saidin for males and Saidar for females. This in it self migth be a limiting factor, how could the Aes Sedai be certian the man actually channeled when he swore the Oath? Also if he was to far gone in his madness no oath would probably hold him, most of the men seems to loose much of their awerness when under the influence of the Taint, and as stated the Oaths works based on the channelers perceptions.

As the allusion of that an Oath against channeling is more humane than Genteling/Stilling is false, since Stilled/Genteled pepole can still sense the True Source, but the part of what makes them able to actually channel is gone. The child with a coockie in his hand is a good one tho. My guess is that it actually is worse, since you know that you could if only the Oath was gone channel again as opposed to knowing the ability is gone for good. (Well untill recently). My guess is that men (and women) that was forced into such an oath would most likely die of the same reson they die afther being Severed.

Also the fact that the Aes Sedai of the Present Age wiev their Oats on the Oath Rod is what makes them Aes Sedai makes it highly unlikely to even have consided useing one male channelers.
That aside the Oaths ARE actually what makes the Aes Sedai of this Age a cohesive society, it's the common touching point for all sisters. My guess is that Egwenes restructuring of the Aes Sedai will lead to removal of Oats and probably be replaced with something else. As we have no indication what made the Society of Aes Sedai in the AoL viable we only have to guess how this can be acomplished.